Criminal Law and Evidence Quiz

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a standard that requires a jury to be at least 98% to 99% certain that the evidence proves the defendant to be guilty.

What is the standard of proof used in civil trials?

The "castle doctrine" laws justify the use of deadly force only when the individual is in their own home.

The "reasonable person" element in criminal trials refers to an objective test, meaning it does not take into account the particular abilities of the defendant.

The primary goal of the American criminal courts is to pursue truth-seeking above all other goals, including protecting the innocent and ensuring fairness.

What is a "search warrant"?

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine states that any evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or seizure is inadmissible in court.

Which of these scenarios demonstrates the concept of "inevitable discovery" as an exception to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine?

The "independent source" exception to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine can be applied if the evidence was initially obtained through an illegal search, but later obtained through a completely separate legal search.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule applies when a police officer acted on a facially valid warrant but the warrant is later found to be defective.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule will apply if the officer lied to or misled the magistrate who issued the warrant.

In the context of the exclusionary rule, evidence is typically inadmissible in most cases if it is illegally obtained.

The exclusionary rule only applies in federal court cases.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mandates that before police question a suspect in custody, they must inform them of their right to remain silent and their right to an attorney.

If a suspect is arrested and not read their "Miranda" rights, any statement or confession they make is inadmissible in court.

If a suspect voluntarily and knowingly waives their Miranda rights, they are then able to be questioned by police without the need for additional warnings.

A defendant who waives their right to counsel under Miranda can be questioned by police until a lawyer is made available to them.

Which of the following is NOT considered a situation where "Miranda" warnings are required?

If a suspect makes a voluntary confession, but that confession is later found to be inconsistent with their trial testimony, the confession is not admissible to impeach their testimony at trial.

A prior confession, obtained in violation of "Miranda", can NEVER be used to impeach a defendant's testimony.

Police are prohibited from lying to suspects to obtain a confession.

A defendant's mental illness or intoxication alone is sufficient to render a confession involuntary.

The "Alford Plea" is considered a guilty plea, even though the defendant maintains their innocence. In this type of plea, the defendant acknowledges the existence of sufficient evidence that could likely convince a judge or jury to find them guilty.

An "Alford Plea" can be used in every U.S. state court.

Plea bargaining is a common practice in the American legal system, representing approximately 90% of all criminal cases.

Plea bargaining is permissible in every country.

In a plea bargain, the defendant may agree to accept a lesser charge in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Judges always have to accept and honor the agreed-upon terms of a plea bargain.

Which of the following is NOT considered a potential benefit of plea bargaining?

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule is intended to deter police misconduct.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule is a more recent development than the exclusionary rule.

One of the key constitutional rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in a criminal trial is the right to a speedy trial.

The "voir dire" process is a form of interview used to determine if prospective jurors are qualified to serve on a jury.

A defendant can never be tried twice for the same crime.

In a bench trial, the defendant chooses to have a judge, rather than a jury, decide their case.

The majority of criminal cases go to trial.

The "exclusionary rule" is a recent development in the American legal system, designed to prevent egregious police misconduct and protect individuals' rights.

The "exclusionary rule" is widely considered to be ineffective in deterring police misconduct and protecting the rights of innocent people.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule is a relatively recent development, implemented to address the potential for overly broad application and unintended consequences of the rule.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule aims to deter police misconduct.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine directly applies to both physical evidence and witness testimony.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" requires the prosecution to demonstrate that the police misconduct was sufficiently deliberate to justify excluding the evidence.

The "independent source" exception to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine allows evidence to be admitted even if it was initially obtained through an illegal search, if it was later discovered through entirely legal means.

The "inevitable discovery" exception to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine requires evidence to be excluded if it would have eventually been discovered even without the police misconduct.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule applies if the police officer reasonably relied on a valid statute or ordinance that was later deemed unconstitutional.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply if the police officer knowingly and intentionally violates a suspect's rights, but does apply in cases of negligence or simple mistake on the part of the officer.

The exclusionary rule requires the state to prove that the admission of illegally obtained evidence was a harmless error, which would not have affected the verdict in the case.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine extends the exclusionary rule to any evidence that was illegally obtained, but not to any admission the suspect makes as a result of the illegally obtained evidence.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine applies to situations where the police conduct a valid search, but they fail to provide the suspect with their "Miranda" warnings before questioning them, and the suspect then confesses.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine applies to physical evidence but not to witness testimony.

When an officer is aware that a warrant is defective, they cannot invoke the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule.

The exclusionary rule is applied to all types of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The "good faith" exception only applies when the police acted on a facially valid warrant that was later deemed defective.

Grand jury proceedings are generally kept public.

Prosecutors are required to provide all "exculpatory evidence" to the defense.

In a preliminary hearing, the judge decides the guilt or innocence of the defendant.

When the defendant is found guilty after a trial, the judge has complete control and discretion over the sentencing decision.

A defendant can only appeal a conviction after their case is fully adjudicated.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine applies to evidence that is obtained through a warrantless search but would have been discovered anyway by the police.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine only applies to evidence obtained directly as a result of an illegal action but not to subsequent evidence that was obtained from the initial evidence.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule will apply when the police officer executed a search using a proper search warrant, but the subsequent evidence revealed was not explicitly described in the warrant.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine has been used to correct widespread systemic negligence in law enforcement, not just individual instances of police misconduct.

The "inevitable discovery" exception permits illegally obtained evidence to be used in court only when it would have been discovered through a search or investigation that was completely independent of the illegal conduct by the police.

The "independent source" exception to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine applies to evidence obtained through a separate and lawful search, even if that search is conducted by a third party, as long as the police were not directly involved in obtaining the evidence.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule applies if the police officer relied on case law that was later invalidated by a higher court decision.

The "inevitable discovery" exception is a fairly recent development in the law, and it serves as a narrow exception to the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, aimed at striking a balance between deterring police misconduct and protecting the rights of citizens.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine applies to any evidence that is obtained as a result of an illegal search, but not to any admissions made by the suspect as a result of being subjected to an illegal search.

One of the main exceptions to the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule is when police officers execute a search based on a warrant that is so defective that the warrant is invalid on its face.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule requires the police officer to be acting in good faith based on a valid statute or ordinance, which is not limited to search warrants.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule applies if police officers acted based on information provided by a reliable informant, even if later determined to be false.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule only applies to situations where the police reasonably relied on a valid warrant that was later found to be defective.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" rule is an exception to the exclusionary rule, allowing for the use of evidence obtained through illegally obtained evidence.

The exclusionary rule makes evidence obtained by police through an illegal search inadmissible in court, but it does not apply to confessions made by the suspect as a result of the illegal search.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply if the police officer did not have any reason to believe that their conduct was lawful.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule applies only if the police officer acted based on a facially valid warrant, regardless of whether they have reason to believe that the warrant was properly obtained.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule is intended to preserve the balance between protecting the accused from police misconduct and deterring future misconduct.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is a recent development in the law, and it serves as a narrow exception to the exclusionary rule, intended to protect the rights of law enforcement officers and the public.

The "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply if the police officer executes a search based on a warrant that is so defective that the warrant is invalid on its face.

The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is a recent development in the law. It was established to address the concern that the exclusionary rule could actually discourage the prosecution of crimes by making it more difficult to obtain evidence.

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Due Process Clauses

Burden of Proof

Preponderance of the Evidence

Clear and Convincing Evidence

Exclusionary Rule

Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Probable Cause

Inevitable Discovery

Independent Source

Good Faith Exception

Interrogation

Confession

Double Jeopardy

Due Process

Subpoena

Defendants' Rights

Criminal Procedure

Substantial Evidence

Probable Cause

Proof

Testimony

Search Warrant

Judge

Jury

Prosecutor

Defense Attorney

Verdict

Appeal

Cross-Examination